Farmers Creek: Our Stream Needs Your Help, 2006

Pollution from sediment and nutrients has hurt Farmers Creek’s fish population and placed the stream on the state’s impaired waters list. If we want to give our children and grandchildren clean water for drinking, swimming and fishing – we need to act now.

Indexes of prices received by Iowa farmers for farm commodities.

The Iowa Crop and Livestock Report

05005-002 Farmers Creek Watershed Final Report

Farmers Creek is a moderately flowing stream that winds through seventeen miles of central Jackson County, encompassing a watershed area of 30,590 acres. Due to nutrient loading and sedimentation, the stream was placed on Iowa’s 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in 2002. A three year grant project was initiated in January 2005 to reduce both sediment delivery and phosphorus levels by 40% in critical areas along the stream corridor. Over thirty-five BMP’s were started in the first nine months of this project. Funding through WIRB is being requested specifically for streambank stabilization and protection projects not covered by other cost-share programs. Innovative project designs and techniques will be installed and act as demonstration sites. Projects may include jetties, weirs, cedar revetments, cattle crossings, and fencing. To assist in excluding cattle from the stream, watering systems such as slingpumps, pasture pumps, or water rams will be installed, in conjunction with filter strips and riparian buffers.

Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers��� Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

U.S. Farm Policy and the Variability of Commodity Prices and Farm Revenues, February 2000

A dynamic, three-commodity rational-expectations storage model is used to compare the impact of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 with a freemarket policy and with the agricultural policies that preceded the FAIR Act. Results support the hypothesis that the changes made when FAIR was enacted did not lead to permanent significant increases in the volatility of farm prices or revenues. An important finding is that the main economic impacts of the Pre-FAIR scenario, relative to the free-market regime were to transfer income to farmers and to substitute government storage for private storage in a way that did little to support prices or to stabilize farm incomes.

The Collective-Quality Promotion in the Agribusiness Sector: An Overview, October 2005

This paper reviews the economic effects of collective-quality promotion through a survey of the recent literature devoted to common labeling and professional groups. Benefits and costs of common labeling and professional groups for improving quality are detailed. Some empirical facts are presented, mainly focusing on some European examples, since many European countries have a long history of producer-owned marketing programs. This paper shows that in some cases the collective-quality promotion can be a successful strategy for firms/farmers.

How Much “Safety” Is Available under the U.S. Proposal to the WTO?, November 2005

Critics of the U.S. proposal to the World Trade Organization (WTO) made in October 2005 are correct when they argue that adoption of the proposal would significantly reduce available support under the current farm program structure. Using historical prices and yields from 1980 to 2004, we estimate that loan rates would have to drop by 9 percent and target prices would have to drop by 10 percent in order to meet the proposed aggregate Amber Box and Blue Box limits. While this finding should cheer those who think that reform of U.S. farm programs is long overdue, it alarms those who want to maintain a strong safety net for U.S. agriculture. The dilemma of needing to reform farm programs while maintaining a strong safety net could be resolved by redesigning programs so that they target revenue rather than price. Building on a base of 70 percent Green Box income insurance, a program that provides a crop-specific revenue guarantee equal to 98 percent of the product of the current effective target price and expected county yield would fit into the proposed aggregate Amber and Blue Box limits. Payments would be triggered whenever the product of the season-average price and county average yield fell below this 98 percent revenue guarantee. Adding the proposed crop-specific constraints lowers the coverage level to 95 percent. Moving from programs that target price to ones that target revenue would eliminate the rationale for ad hoc disaster payments. Program payments would automatically arrive whenever significant crop losses or economic losses caused by low prices occurred. Also, much of the need for the complicated mechanism (the Standard Reinsurance Agreement) that transfers most risk of the U.S. crop insurance to the federal government would be eliminated because the federal government would directly assume the risk through farm programs. Changing the focus of federal farm programs from price targeting to revenue targeting would not be easy. Farmers have long relied on price supports and the knowledge that crop losses are often adequately covered by heavily subsidized crop insurance or by ad hoc disaster payments. Farmers and their leaders would only be willing to support a change to revenue targeting if they see that the current system is untenable in an era of tight federal budgets and WTO limits.

Get a GRIP: Should Area Revenue Coverage Be Offered through the Farm Bill or as a Crop Insurance Program? 2007

The successful expansion of the U.S. crop insurance program has not eliminated ad hoc disaster assistance. An alternative currently being explored by members of Congress and others in preparation of the 2007 farm bill is to simply remove the “ad hoc” part of disaster assistance programs by creating a standing program that would automatically funnel aid to hard-hit regions and crops. One form such a program could take can be found in the area yield and area revenue insurance programs currently offered by the U.S. crop insurance program. The Group Risk Plan (GRP) and Group Risk Income Protection (GRIP) programs automatically trigger payments when county yields or revenues, respectively, fall below a producer-elected coverage level. The per-acre taxpayer costs of offering GRIP in Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa for corn and soybeans through the crop insurance program are estimated. These results are used to determine the amount of area revenue coverage that could be offered to farmers as part of a standing farm bill disaster program. Approximately 55% of taxpayer support for GRIP flows to the crop insurance industry. A significant portion of this support comes in the form of net underwriting gains. The expected rate of return on money put at risk by private crop insurance companies under the current Standard Reinsurance Agreement is approximately 100%. Taking this industry support and adding in the taxpayer support for GRIP that flows to producers would fund a county target revenue program at the 93% coverage level.

Executive Order Number Two, February 28, 2007

Orders that the deadline for individual Iowa taxpayers who are farmers to pay their 2006 individual income tax is extended until March 15, 2007.

Living Snow Fences, 2006

Blowing snow can cause significant problems for mobility and safety during winter weather in three distinct ways. It may drift onto the road, thus requiring almost continuous plowing while the wind is blowing (which may occur when a given winter storm is over). Snow may drift onto wet pavement (perhaps caused by ice control chemicals) and dilute out the chemicals on the road, creating ice on the road. And sufficient blowing snow can cause a major deterioration in visibility on the road, a factor which has been shown to be significant in winter crashes. The problem of blowing snow can be very effectively addressed by creating a snow storage device upwind of the road that requires protection from snow drifting. Typically, these storage devices are fences. Extensive design guidance exists for the required height and placement of such fences for a given annual snowfall and given local topography. However, the design information on the placement of living snow fences is less complete. The purpose of this report is to present the results of three seasons of study on using standing corn as snow fences. In addition, the experience of using switch grass as a snow storage medium is also presented. On the basis of these experimental data, a design guide has been developed that makes use of the somewhat unique snow storage characteristics of standing corn snow fences. The results of the field tests on using standing corn showed that multiple rows of standing corn store snow rather differently than a traditional wooden snow fence. Specifically, while a traditional fence stores most of the snow downwind from the fence (and thus must be placed a significant distance upwind of the road to be protected, specifically at least 35 times the snow fence height) rows of standing corn store the majority of the snow within the rows. Results from the three winters of testing show that the standing corn snow fences can store as much snow within the rows of standing corn as a traditional fence of typical height for operation in Iowa (4 to 6 feet) can store. This finding is significant because it means that the snow fences can be placed at the edge of the farmer’s field closest to the road, and still be effective. This is typically much more convenient for the farmer and thus may mean that more farmers would be willing to participate in a program that uses standing corn than in traditional programs. ii On the basis of the experimental data, design guidance for the use of standing corn as a snow storage device in Iowa is given in the report. Specifically, it is recommended that if the fetch in a location to be protected is less than 5,000 feet, then 16 rows of standing corn should be used, at the edge of the field adjacent to the right of way. If the fetch is greater than 5,000 feet, then 24 rows of standing corn should be used. This is based on a row spacing of 22 inches. Further, it should be noted that these design recommendations are ONLY for the State of Iowa. Other states of course have different winter weather and without extensive further study, it cannot be said that these guidelines would be effective in other locations with other winter conditions.

Adoption Subsidies and Environmental Impacts of Alternative Energy Crops, March 2007

We provide estimates of the costs associated with inducing substantial conversion of land from production of traditional crops to switchgrass. Higher traditional crop prices due to increased demand for corn from the ethanol industry has increased the relative advantage that row crops have over switchgrass. Results indicate that farmers will convert to switchgrass production only with significant conversion subsidies. To examine potential environmental consequences of conversion, we investigate three stylized landscape usage scenarios, one with an entire conversion of a watershed to switchgrass production, a second with the entire watershed planted to continuous corn under a 50% removal rate of the biomass, and a third scenario that places switchgrass on the most erodible land in the watershed and places continuous corn on the least erodible. For each of these illustrative scenarios, the watershed-scale Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) hydrological model (Arnold et al., 1998; Arnold and Forher, 2005) is used to evaluate the effect of these landscape uses on sediment and nutrient loadings in the Maquoketa Watershed in eastern Iowa.

Fresh News, Spring 2007

A newsletter produced by Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, all about the Farmers Markets in Iowa.

Protecting our bridges for the future, April 2006

Changes in agriculture operations over the past 35 years are having a dramatic impact on Iowa’s roads and bridges. The average size of an Iowa farm has increased to 352 acres in 2003, compared to 237 acres in 1970. Modern agricultural practices have also produced higher yields per acre, which means more grain to haul to market. In order to increase efficiency, farmers are beginning to use larger capacity wagons hauling more bushels per trip to the elevator, and using much heavier equipment in their farming operations. This trend is stressing Iowa bridges beyond the current capabilities to maintain them.

Methamphetamine Inhibitor: Calcium Nitrate– What You Need to Know, 2006

Iowa agriculture depends on anhydrous ammonia as a low-cost form of nitrogen fertilizer on 61 percent of Iowa’s 12.4 million acres of corn. Now we find a threat to that source of nutrient—the theft of anhydrous ammonia for use in making a powerful, illegal narcotic called methamphetamine. Naturally, the fertilizer industry is outraged by the illegal and illicit use of our products. We want to play a role in preventing abuse in the future. By raising awareness, knowing how to respond and using the Meth Inhibitor, fertilizer dealers can assist law enforcement in combating this illicit use of a product important to Iowa farmers.

Iowa Ag Insider, August 31, 2012

Welcome to the initial edition of the Iowa Ag Insider, the newsletter of the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship. We see this newsletter as a way to keep people informed of the activities of the Department and also highlight some of the exciting things going on in Iowa agriculture in general. If you know of events or stories that should be included in future newsletters I hope that you will share them with us so they can be included in future editions. Also, if you know of people who would enjoy receiving this newsletter I hope you will pass it on as the information on how to subscribe is on the bottom of each issue. This is an exciting time of year in Iowa as farmers and everyone involved in agriculture gets ready to kickoff the growing season. We wish everyone a successful and safe 2013 as we get to the business of growing the crops that help power Iowa’s economy and feed the people of our state and trading partners around the world. Iowa is fortunate to have such a dynamic agriculture industry and each of you play a role in helping make Iowa agriculture so successful.